Delhi Court July 1992 Judgments

Ad Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shankar and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: II(1992)BC525; [1993]76CompCas764(Delhi); 1992(2)Crimes1145; 48(1992)DLT274; 1992(23)DRJ351; 1992RLR364

Mohd. Shamim, J.(1) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated February 17, 1990 passed by Shri D.R. Jain. Metropolitan Magistrate. New Delhi. who, whereby the said order dismissed the complaint presented by the petitioner under Sections 138/141 of the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act. 1988. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the sake of brevity). (2) Brief facts which led to the present complaint are as under: that the petitioner-complainant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at 29A, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta, with a Branch Office at 406, Meghdoot, 94, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta is a Director of the petitioner company and is thus fully authorised and competent to present this petition. Indian Safety Matches Co. Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Compani...

Brij Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 48(1992)DLT443; 1992(24)DRJ582

Mahinder Narain, J. (1) The petitioners are small scale units, manufacturing Single Super Phosphate Fertilizer. The claim in this petition is that as a manufacturer of Single Super Phosphate Fertilizer, they were entitled to subsidy in accordance with the retention price on subsidy scheme postulated by the respondent No.2.(2) According to the said retention price subsidy scheme (hereinafter called 'the M/s. Brij Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Union of India & Another 5 8 3 Scheme'), if the manufacturer of Single Super Phosphate which had water soluble 16% Phosphate Pentaoxids (Pflj, then they were entitled to this subsidy.(3) In the counter-affidavit filed, it has been admitted in para 20 that the primary basis for receiving the subsidy is the certificate tendered on a monthly claim for the quality check to be given by the Single Super Phosphate units themselves.(4) It is not in dispute that the quality certificates required to be submitted were, in fact, submitted.(5) It is assert...

Rajinder Bhardwaj Vs. Anita Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: ILR1993Delhi551; 1992RLR390

P.N. Nag, J.(1) [ED. Facts : There were proceedings under H.M. Act in which wife was successful. Husband appealed to High Court. Appeal was heard and reserved for orders. Respdt. at this stage made an application u/S. 151, Civil Procedure Code . r.w. S. 27 of HM. Act saying that appellant had not given her Istridhan and he should be ordered to give same or its value amounting to more than Rs.2 lakh.] Judgment para 4 onwards is;- (2) I have given Careful consideration to the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and am of the considered opinion that this application raises serious disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in these appellate proceedings. (3) Under S. 19 of the Act 'Every partition Under the Act shall be presented to the District court Within the local limits of ordinary original civil Jurisdiction (i) the marriage Was solemnized, or (ii) the respondent at the time of the presentation of the petition resides, or (iii) the parties to the marria...

S. Kapur and Son Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal arises against the adjudication order No. Addl. (HKS) III/2485/89, dated 7-9-1989, whereby a penalty of Rs. 5,50,000 (Rupees five lakhs and fifty thousand only) was imposed on S. Kapur and Son for violation of the provisions of section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ("the Act"). 2. In this case, following two show-cause notices were issued to the appellant: (i) Memorandum No. T-4/36-83(SCN-I) dated 20-12-1983. (ii) Memorandum No. T-4/36-D/83(SCN-II) dated 20-12-1983. 3. S.C.N. I: This show-cause notice was issued to the appellant S. Kapur and Son, alleging that during the years 1975-81, they effected shipment of goods valued at Rs. 6,41,780 under GRI Form Nos. DEL-A. 605513, A-416575, DEL-B. 140499, B-140500, B-788364 and B-788366; that the entire export proceeds in respect of these shipments had not been received so far in India by the appellant and that the appellant has failed to realise the full export proceeds of the said shipments from the forei...

Jayabharat Credit and Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ77

P.N. Nag, J.(1) This is an application under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for payment of wages to the workman-respondent No.3 from the date of institution of proceedings till the pendency of the writ petition before this Court.(2) Vide Award dated 4th June, 1987, which has been challenged in the writ petition, it has been held by the Labour Court No.V that the workman-respondent No. 3 is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.(3) The applicant-workman in the application has stated that while he was in the employment of the petitioner he was having agricultural land in Haryana and from which he was deriving some income. However, in or around 1982 the applicant sold his aforesaid agricultural land and purchased Bus No. DEP-4059 in 1982 on hire purchase, which was later sold in 1988. In 1984, the applicant purchased Bus No. Dep 6259 on hire-purchase. At some time, these two buses were running under...

imam and anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992(2)Crimes1178; 48(1992)DLT458; 1992(23)DRJ524; 1993(41)ECC117

Usha Mehra, J.(1) Imam and Megh Raj have been charged under Section 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter called the NDPS Act), 1985. They were arrested 'in 31.8.91. Allegation of the prosecution is that these two persons were sitting on the Railway platform of Old Delhi Railway Station. They were sitting on two parcels booked through railway and one parcel was lying abandoned. These two petitioners were surrounded by the police and were confronted to show the contents of these three parcels. On being confronted the petitioners admitted that these parcels contained 'Charas'. On weighing it was found that three parcels contained 94.50-Kg. of 'Charas' and since then the petitioners are in jail. (2) Petitioners have come up before this Court challenging their detention on the ground that no challenge/charge sheet has been filed by the prosecution till date. The period of 90 days from the date of arrest has already expired, thereforee, under Section 16...

Chidda Ram Vs. State

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992CriLJ4073; 1992(2)Crimes1140; 1992(23)DRJ344

Usha Mehra, J.1. Chidda Ram son of Shri Birbal had been convicted under section 366/376, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count. It was further ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. Against this order of conviction and sentence, Chidda Ram has come up in appeal inter alias on the grounds that the prosecution failed to produce the report of the analyst with regard to the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix. In the absence of the medical report of the prosecutrix, the petitioner could not have been convicted. Trial Court has also ignored the report of the prosecutrix lodged with the police post Shadipura which circumstances establishes that subsequent story given by the prosecutrix is afterthought and built up. The learned Sessions Judge has also ignored the testimony of Prem Prakash, Police Officer of police post, Shadipura. Further he has also ignored the evidence regarding the age of the prosecutrix. In fact the trial Court has...

Satnam Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992CriLJ3961; 1992(2)Crimes1133; 1992(23)DRJ365

Usha Mehra, J.(1) The petitioner, Satnam Singh, has been detained by an order dated 5th June, 1991, passed by Shri Mahendra Prasad, Joint Secretary to the Government of Inida. The detention order is under Section 3 Sub-Section (1) of Conservation of foreign Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (as amended), 1974 (For short Cofeposa Act). This order has been passed to with a view to preventing the petitioner Satnam Singh, son of Shri Kishan Singh, from engaging in transporting and keeping smuggled goods and dealing in smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in concealing smuggled goods. Along with the detention order grounds of detention of even date was served upon the detenu (petitioner). He was also informed of his entitlement to make representation against his detention both to the Central Government as well as to the Advisory Board. By this petition he has challenged the aforesaid detention order. (2) Earlier the petitioner was arrested on 17th April, 1990 by the C...

Aftab Alam Verus Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. This appeal arises against the adjudication order No. ADJ/68/90/ 9594 dated 26-9-1990 whereby a penalty of Rs. 44,000 was imposed on the appellant for violation of the provisions of section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant was travelling in Air India Flight No. A-I 742 from Dubai to Bombay on 17-7-1989. Pursuant to an information that certain persons travelling from Dubai to Bombay via Delhi in the said flight were carrying foreign exchange/documents in violation of the provisions of the Act, the passengers were checked at Delhi airport. As a result of the search of the person and baggage of the appellant, Shri Aftab Alam and the seat No. 53-J occupied by him, three gold button shaped pieces lying beneath the seat No. 53-J, one gold ball pen and two gold rings and some documents were recovered from the appellant and seized. The quantity of the seized gold was 225 gms. The appellant disclosed in his sta...

D.D. Sharma Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1992(24)DRJ117

Santosh Duggal, J. (1) The petitioner, a Colonel int he Army, has come up with this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of mandamus to the respondents in the nature of an order and/or direction requiring them to consider the petitioner for selection/promotion to the rank of Brigadier in the Selection Board meeting scheduled to be held on 28th February 1991 and to promote him as such, if found suitable, taking the petitioner to have been commissioned in December 1965.(2) The facts are not in dispute, and in short are that the petitioner was selected for Emergency Recruitment and joined training as an officer on Emergency Commission on 20th January 1964 and was granted Emergency Commission on 2nd August 1964, after completion of the period of training which actualy worked out to be six months 12 days. He was granted permanent commission on 1st April 1970 and has been in continuous service since then and after earning all the promotions as and when ...